by David Ng

It would appear that our (Canadian) Government is poised to once again abhor evidence based decision making. Here, scientists have looked over the Joint Review Panel Report that is being used to push forward the Enbridge Northern Gateway Project. In essence, they conclude (and for full disclosure, I am one of the signatories) that it “has so many systemic errors and omissions, we – the 300 signatories – can only consider it a failure.”

What are these flaws you ask? Well, the core problems have been outlined in a press release (see below for full press release), and are as follows:

1. The JRP failed to consider important impacts, such as the increased greenhouse gas emissions that could result from oils sands development and burning Northern Gateway oil products in Asia

2. The JRP reached conclusions contradicting the government’s own scientific evidence, including risks to large whales and other marine species.

4. The JRP relied on an oil spill response plan that is not yet developed

5. The JRP relied on information from the proponent, without external evaluation.

6. The JRP failed to adequately articulate the rationale for its findings.

The open letter sent to the Prime Minister and asking him to reject the JRP panels can be viewed in full here. The report for the JRP can be downloaded here.

– – –

I have to say that this continued anti-science behaviour from the Canadian Government is so devastating that I feel like the Harper Government now deserves its own meme: hence the silly meme above that is not only animated, but depicts the seriousness of the situation with an elevated facepalm category- the MEGAFACEPALM. Please share widely. (Note: a high quality animated gif can be found here).

Vancouver, BC (Tuesday, June 3, 2014) – Scientists from across Canada are asking Prime Minister Harper to reject the findings of the Joint Review Panel (JRP) in the federal decision to approve or reject the Enbridge Northern Gateway Project.

In a letter to the Prime Minister signed by 300 scientists from several nations, including fellows of the Royal Society and Order of Canada holders, they say the JRP’s recommendation to approve the oil sands pipeline was based on a “flawed analysis of the risks and benefits to B.C.’s environment and society.”

“The JRP report has so many systemic errors and omissions, we—the 300 signatories—can only consider it a failure,” says UBC associate professor Kai Chan, who led the initiative with SFU assistant professor Anne Salomon and UBC professor Eric Taylor.

“The report does not provide the guidance the federal government needs to make a sound decision for Canadians about the Northern Gateway Project,” Chan says.

The scientists express concerns the Panel omitted important impacts and considered unbalanced, and in some cases, biased evidence that led to a faulty conclusion in its recommendation that Northern Gateway be approved. The JRP assessment, they say:

· Failed to consider important impacts, such as the increased greenhouse gas emissions that could result from oils sands development and burning Northern Gateway oil products in Asia

· Reached conclusions contradicting the government’s own scientific evidence, including risks to large whales and other marine species.

One Comment to “Scientists say the Joint Review Panel Report that approves the Northern Gateway Project is flawed and ignores science.”

[…] Dave Ng sez, “The Canadian government is poised to once again abhor evidence-based decision making. 300 scientists have looked over the Joint Review Panel Report that is being used to push forward the Enbridge Northern Gateway Project have concluded that it ‘has so many systemic errors and omissions, we can only consider it a failure.’” […]

David Ng is a science literacy academic and Faculty member at the University of British Columbia. He writes here and there, including humour for McSweeney's, essays for the Walrus, and blog posts for Boingboing.net. He has a molecular genetics lab full of curios and is interested in various areas of science education, communication, and outreach - particularly those where the notions of science and art intersect.

Popperfont is envisioned to be a place to share interesting, pretty things; to collect the odd thought: all categorized for use as transition pieces in talks, discussions, lectures, etc (i.e. they're striking, they're funny, they make good anecdotes). Also, this site doubles as an excuse to practice some good old science writing. It will be occasionally serious, but mostly it's all about this.

Hopefully, a growing collection of (unconventional) essays on things you need to know to call yourself a sciencegeek (or something like that). 01 A TANGENTIAL SCIENTIFIC METHOD (in five parts) – pdf

“Lizzie Popperfont and the Collider Whale Tale”

An ongoing children’s novel that covertly centers around the “Scientific Method”: Also includes that ever popular plot device – secret synchrotrons disguised as massive whales. Not finished, but you can read what I’ve done so far here.

Assorted Clips

I publish a little bit here and there. Mostly stuff that fits in the category of science humour. Writing posts can be seen under a writing category. My portfolio site proper is here.

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.